[SK in CV]

My condolences desmond. I hope he’s in a cool place.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]
Ok, let’s see.

Revenue 2.435 trillion.

Expire tax cuts let’s be generous and add $200 billion. Revenue = 2.635 trillion.

Expire payroll tax for another $120 billion or so. Revenue = 2.755 trillion.

Now for spending $3.563 trillion.

Reduce military by 40% so 676*.4 = $270 billion so spending is now $3.293.

Reduce discretionary by 20% so 1.289*.2 = 257.8 billion so spending is now 3.035.

So we got closer but we need another 3.035-2.755 = $280 billion in cuts or revenue.

It gets pretty hard when you don’t touch entitlements, doesn’t it.[/quote]

Projected revenues for the current fiscal year are over $2.9 trillion. With those cuts, we’ll have a surplus. No entitlement cuts required.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali][quote=SK in CV]I doubt those spending increases you expect are going to happen. You know, federal government growth over the last 3 years has been the smallest it’s been in decades.[/quote]

Great use of picking a good starting point to base your argument. Government spending went up over 15%(3.168 trillion to 3.696 trillion) in one year between 2008 and 2009 so lets use 2009 as our starting point. How about we use 2000 or 2002 as our starting points. From 2002 government spending went up 41% (2515 to 3563) yet government revenue went up 5% (2318 to 2435). Entitlement spending went from 1383 in 2002 to 2053 in 2012 which is an increase of almost 50%. US GDP grew from 11.59 trillion in 2002 to 13.62 trillion in 2012 for an increase of 17.5%.

So where is the big problem in government, it’s right there in entitlement spending. It’s increasing much faster that any of the other categories. GDP growth won’t fix it, tax revenues which are based on GDP won’t fix it. The only way to fix it is to stop growth in entitlement spending or perhaps shrink it.

Guess what the affordable care act (aka Obamacare) does to entitlement spending in the future?[/quote]

Defense spending over the same period went from about $400B to $800B, an increase of 100%.

The biggest portion of entitlement spending is SS. Yet SS collections over those same years exceeded SS spending. That increase in spending is purely a function of more people reaching retirement age. Much of the additional entitlement increases were purely a function of economic decline. Those expenditures will (and already have) decline as the economy improves. There has been no major permanent statutory entitlement expansion in the last 10 years with the exception of the drug coverage for medicare recipients (save for those that have not yet fully gone into effect).

[SK in CV]

[quote=paramount]Of this I am certain: The Jerry Brown’s of the world – and his minions – believe those of us who work in the private sector are nothing but garbage.

I think that attitude has surfaced on these forums as well.[/quote]

Why do you think Jerry Brown has anything against private sector workers? Because he’s slashed public pension benefits, shifted much of the costs to employees, and moved towards a more sound fiscal policy for the state? Are those things that are evil to the private sector?

[SK in CV]

I doubt those spending increases you expect are going to happen. You know, federal government growth over the last 3 years has been the smallest it’s been in decades.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
My point is that this country has spent to the point beyond which we are now heavily in deficit spending there’s no point even in talking about reducing the debt. And the economy shouldn’t be growing. It’s overgrown…I don’t see the point in artificially proping up an economy that will sink back down once the stimuli is taken away. Can’t stimuli away to N=N+1 forever….

But i don’t mind if that’s the direction the country wants to go, and we want to enslave the millinials in a lot of debt. Sure as hell won’t be my kid.[/quote]

The economy shouldn’t be growing? I don’t get that. It doesn’t have to be propped up in perpetuity. It needs to be held up until moderate growth returns. At which time spending SHOULD be cut, taxes SHOULD be raised, and debt SHOULD be paid down.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
Just look at how this fiscal cliff is being handled. Everyone’s trying to be “delicate” about it… Neither side wants to fall of the cliff and actually cut spending..They’re talking about deficit reduction when they really should be talking about debt reduction….

[/quote]

No, they shouldn’t be talking about debt reduction or even talking about cutting spending. They should be talking about improving the economy and maintaining the status quo until the economy improves. We do not have a debt crisis. We don’t have a spending crisis. We have a prolonged economic downturn. We currently have an annual deficit of about $1 trillion. A moderately growing economy, all by itself, would cut that down to about $400 billion a year. If we have a growing GDP, increasing debt by $.4T per year is not a big deal, particularly at current interest rates. It’s comparable to someone making $200K a year, with 3 to 5% raises every year, increasing their mortgage payments by a couple hundred dollars a month. I’m not claiming it’s a good idea to do it. Or preferable. But it is sustainable.

There are lots of huge financial decisions that this country has to make. But dealing with a debt crisis is not currently one of them.

[SK in CV]

Already happened. Unlikely interest rates will rise until prices move up sharply. But they’re already off the bottom.

[SK in CV]

I remember the Brenda Spencer story pretty well. I grew up in that area.

Just a few years earlier, and just a couple of miles away, a high school senior, Danny Alstadt took an axe, and gave his father 40 whacks. And when he saw what he had done, he did the same to his mother and sister. His younger brother survived, but last I heard was still paralyzed. Danny hung himself in prison about 10 years ago. He had been my younger brother’s science lab partner in high school.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu][quote=squat300]Things can bring tension.

You get a BMW, it needs more maintenance, you gotta insure it, etc etc.

My wife says this speculation is stupid and I should focus on making her happy now.[/quote]

The first 4 years, maintenance is free (less than an accord)… The trick is to ditch it after 4 years…And do it the good old american way… You don’t need to pay cash for it, you just need to take out a lease and make minimum payments…
And if you run your own business, you can write off a portion of it probably too.

See, you can eat your cake and have it too…Sort of…

[/quote]

Just to clarify….are you talking about the wife or the BMW? Because I leased my first one very short term. Wasn’t a total failure, just didn’t last too long. Next one I purchased outright and kept until it was fully depreciated. Got decent milage, but it cost me a ton of money to get rid of at the end.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]SK: I almost don’t want to ask this, but feel compelled to: Have you been nipping at the cooking sherry again?[/quote]

Dude, it’s freezing here in Az. Way below 50 I bet. The canals may freeze solid tonight. So I’ve been drinking irish coffee all day. Well, not all day. I can’t handle caffeine after about noon. So I stopped putting the coffee in then.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]SK: First off, it’s Mr. Stupid to you. Second, those revenants are still animated and thus not technically “dead”.

Shit, they’re probably eligible to vote in Chicago![/quote]

I can cure the deficit. Stop sending them SS checks, covering them with medicare, and jack up their taxes. The “right to death” people may throw a fit, but screw them. I’m sick of special interests.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Flyer: Both the US Army and USMC have been training for a “zombie apocalypse” scenario. While this sounds nonsensical on its face, the cold reality is that these are actually civil unrest/insurrection operations and the military leadership does not want to tell those soldiers and Marines that they are actually preparing to fire upon American citizens in case such scenarios come to pass.[/quote]

You’re so stupid. Zombies can’t be citizens. They’re dead. duh.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Perhaps this sounds overly paranoid to you, but the thought of voluntarily disarming myself in the face of ever-increasing government intrusion and control just doesn’t seem like a good idea.[/quote]

I totally get that part. I happen to fear government intrusion only slightly less than I fear those more paranoid than you, those accumulating both weapons and ammunition in anticipation of what they see as an inevitably necessary armed resurrection.

[SK in CV]

[quote=mike92104]The problem with the gun control argument is the assumption that a person willing to carry out such horrific acts would care whether the gun was legal or not.[/quote]

Well that pretty much sums it up. Criminals don’t obey laws. Therefore, don’t make laws.

[Author]

Posts